From that Commie Liberal mag known as the Business Insider...

Datsun1500 wrote: It came across like you were mad that you only got a 20 cent raise. The reason it was only 20 cents is because you were already making more than the regular starting wage. If they had started you at the usual rate but done a larger raise on a regular basis, they would have been a good company that gives out solid incentives. It's the same money result, just different results in your head.

ah! okies. no, that was all they ever gave people. You could earn up to 25cents a year more. Did not matter if you were in the AC store or the NY one. It was corporate policy

Xceler8x wrote: I think the market can work if left alone. If you have people actively work against it, the free market has no chance.

I'm hoping you're including quite a few people in government, both elected or appointed. You know, because those berkeleyers are working against the free market as much as anyone in engaged in it.

Capitalism has the most benefits to society of any economic system we've yet come up with. I wouldn't want to try to replace it with anything else.

Its one downfall is the absolute psychotic greed of some people who will use capitalism to exploit their employees in any way they can for their own personal gain, I have worked for a couple of people like that but not for long. The most notable example was a guy who told the entire company in a meeting that salaries benefits and capital expenditures were frozen due to belt tightening needed for the company to survive. Two hours later in a dinner meeting I was at this same guy bragged about blowing up an engine in his deep sea fishing boat the previous weekend and paying someone $20,000 to install an engine overnight so he and his buddies wouldn't miss a day's fishing. Yeah. Right. Some belt tightening. I started hunting other employment quickly.

The companies which really last and go places are the ones which control that greed. Unfortunately as noted there are some who won't take that initative on their own. Sometimes that backfires: fishing boat boy got squeezed out of his own company (which he had inherited from his dad who was known as stern but fair) by a guy who had come in as a partner a year or so after the fishing boat story, a self correcting condition in that case. The new guy treats the employees fairly and is still in business.

Wal-Mart would do better to start low, but give healthy raises after giving good employees very detailed and meticulous reviews. Throw in a few random drugs tests and incentives for passing those drug tests, and you'd probably have a helpful, happy staff, ya know, like most "nice" retail stores.

Curmudgeon wrote: Capitalism has the most benefits to society of any economic system we've yet come up with. I wouldn't want to try to replace it with anything else.

...many of the problems we’re experiencing today are the result of replacing what works with what sounds good.

When I'm the guy making $29,000,000 a year, maybe I'll start telling Walmart's CEO what an idiot he is and how I think he should run his business. Some of you guys talk like these employees are "owed" anything more than they were promised...or "owed" a job in the first place. A job is an agreement between 2 entities. "I'll pay you this much to do this. You cool with that?" You don't have to answer "Yes." If you don't want to make $7.50 an hour shoveling E36 M3 for the rest of your life, don't be a lazy dumbberkeley. If you think you've got this great idea on how to run a big-box store that grosses $420,000,000,000 better than the guys that are already doing it, get off the computer and berkeleying go for it.

Why do I need money to be heard? That's the problem. The greedy rich guy says "I won't listen to anyone who makes less than me."

That's how people develop a God Complex.

PHeller wrote: Why do I need money to be heard? That's the problem. The greedy rich guy says "I won't listen to anyone who makes less than me." That's how people develop a God Complex.

People who have never accomplished something on a grand scale thinking they get to tell those who do what to do isn't a God complex?

When that person who has accomplished being greedy is vastly outnumbered by those who are affected by his greed, I would not call the will of the people a God complex, I'd call them a mob.

Ok so if indeed CEOs and etc are making too much money, what do people propose doing about it?

poopshovel wrote: When I'm the guy making $29,000,000 a year, maybe I'll start telling Walmart's CEO what an idiot he is and how I think he should run his business. Some of you guys talk like these employees are "owed" anything more than they were promised...or "owed" a job in the first place. A job is an agreement between 2 entities. "I'll pay you this much to do this. You cool with that?" You don't have to answer "Yes." If you don't want to make $7.50 an hour shoveling E36 M3 for the rest of your life, don't be a lazy dumbberkeley. If you think you've got this great idea on how to run a big-box store that grosses $420,000,000,000 better than the guys that are already doing it, get off the computer and berkeleying go for it.

But this is a pretty terrible way to look at society, and has been proven to have a negative effect on EVERYONE.

First of all, capitalism, AS IS ITS NATURE, means there must be winners and losers. The problem is that only one can win. Which is fine, until they are faced with a couple hundred million losers they crushed out of sheer greed.

I wouldn't say people are owed a job. Then again, if people actually want to work, I'd go almost as far as saying they have a right to LIVE, which basically means requiring a job. Also, as capitalism means there are winners and losers, this also means that even if everyone got master's degrees, some would still be cleaning toilets or working at McDonalds.

It's a tough situation to be in. I don't vote for everyone being "equal", but I do like the idea of the lowest class of people being able to live comfortable (if mediocre and boring) lives. I gladly pay my taxes to fund many things. Without schmoes like myself or those minimum wage earners, companies wouldn't be able to make their owners so rich as to be able to do blow and bang hookers 24/7 for the rest of their lives. And I will vehemently disagree with the fact that all of these people are "self-made" billionaires. Some came into the money, some earned it from working their way up, some made it by having a specific name.

My point is, how much money is enough? If "all of it" is your answer, well, I don't particularly like that sort of person.

Remember how earlier in the thread someone said that the CEO of Toyota makes $2m a year? That's the upper limit of how much an average American will take home in their lifetime. He makes that in one year. Anyone going to argue that's not enough for something?

oldsaw wrote: I'm hoping you're including quite a few people in government, both elected or appointed. You know, because those berkeleyers are working against the free market as much as anyone in engaged in it.

I most certainly am OldSaw. I most certainly am. I'm talking about right and left.

93EXCivic wrote: Ok so if indeed CEOs and etc are making too much money, what do people propose doing about it?

Since most economists agree that the level of income disparity that we currently have in the U.S. is bad I think it's a pretty good idea to peg the corporate tax rate to the level of income disparity between the leadership and the average worker's salary within that company.

If the CEO is making 50 google dollars and the avg worker is making 1 google dollar then tax the company according to the difference in those numbers. That puts the level of taxation the company endures completely in their control. If they want to pay their CEO a tremendous amt of money and the rest of their workers nothing, that's fine. You'll pay taxes for that. If you want to pay your CEO a moderate amt and your workers an amt closer to that number, then you pay much less in taxes. This would incentivize the company to pay their workers a higher wage without raising the national minimum wage. It may even lower CEO compensation therefore lowering the U.S. income disparity ratio and bringing U.S. CEO compensation in line with the rest of the world where CEO's make significantly less closer to the average citizen. The added benefit would be lower Corporate taxes. It would also shut corp's up about their taxes being too high because, again, they would have control over that number.

If anyone else cares to criticize this idea, feel free. Then post your own so we know you're not a whiny little b!tch.

PHeller wrote: When that person who has accomplished being greedy is vastly outnumbered by those who are affected by his greed, I would not call the will of the people a God complex, I'd call them a mob.

I have never, ever, not once, met somebody who could explain how giving a worker a job at a low wage was worse than not giving them a berking job at all.

Sure, you get the best service and product when the employees are well paid (at least if the company deals with the bad employees).

But do I really care about customer service when I'm buying a 10-pack of socks and 3 gallons of Rotella? Not all that much.

Duke wrote:

PHeller wrote: When that person who has accomplished being greedy is vastly outnumbered by those who are affected by his greed, I would not call the will of the people a God complex, I'd call them a mob.

I have never, ever, not once, met somebody who could explain how giving a worker a job at a low wage was worse than *not giving them a berking job at all.*

It's worse in one way, in the long term it leads to the situation that started this thread (and worse).

Here’s how I see it…although capitalism does operate on individual greed the alternatives operate on collective greed. You’re far less likely to get Berkley’d when it’s every man for himself than when you’re up against an organized, cohesive assault.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Duke wrote:

PHeller wrote: When that person who has accomplished being greedy is vastly outnumbered by those who are affected by his greed, I would not call the will of the people a God complex, I'd call them a mob.

I have never, ever, not once, met somebody who could explain how giving a worker a job at a low wage was worse than *not giving them a berking job at all.*

It's worse in one way, in the long term it leads to the situation that started this thread (and worse).

Is it worse in the long term than being completely unemployed?

Duke wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: It's worse in one way, in the long term it leads to the situation that started this thread (and worse).

Is it worse in the long term than being completely unemployed?

Actually, no. Eventually wages would rise, but it would take an organized strike of unprecedented scale against all low-paying jobs. It'd hurt like hell in the short term though...

HiTempguy wrote: First of all, capitalism, AS IS ITS NATURE, means there must be winners and losers. The problem is that only one can win.

false.

capitalism does not demand a loser. in fact, it is pretty much the opposite. if the terms of a deal are appealing enough to both sides that they wish to proceed with the deal, then that's what they do. both sides win.

AngryCorvair wrote: capitalism does not demand a loser. in fact, it is pretty much the opposite. if the terms of a deal are appealing enough to both sides that they wish to proceed with the deal, then that's what they do. both sides win.

I've heard this argument used to defend the pricing of MS products, telecom prices and health care bills...which I hope demonstrates the flaw in this theory: The victories can be pyrrhic.

GameboyRMH wrote:

AngryCorvair wrote: capitalism does not demand a loser. in fact, it is pretty much the opposite. if the terms of a deal are appealing enough to both sides that they wish to proceed with the deal, then that's what they do. both sides win.

I've heard this argument used to defend the pricing of MS products, telecom prices and health care bills...which I hope demonstrates the flaw in this theory: The victories can be pyrrhic.

The choices can also all be poor options. This can occur if all the people you're dealing with agree, or just happen to, offer the same single sided deal.

It's like mama giving you a choice of taking a bath tonight or tomorrow. Either way, you're getting wet.

PHeller wrote: When that person who has accomplished being greedy is vastly outnumbered by those who are affected by his greed, I would not call the will of the people a God complex, I'd call them a mob.

Lol-mob is a good name for it.

AngryCorvair wrote: capitalism does not demand a loser. in fact, it is pretty much the opposite. if the terms of a deal are appealing enough to both sides that they wish to proceed with the deal, then that's what they do. both sides win.

False on your part. This is assuming that both sides have equal amounts of power, which is not the case in the slightest.

Unless if by "appealing", you mean "this is the difference between me being dead in a gutter in 2 weeks and being able to barely get by on ramen noodles". That is not very appealing to me. Again, one person "wins" in that situation, the other "loses". On top of that, the disparity is reinforced.

I am being very overdramatic, but I am making a point. We don't really see the levels of poverty the US does, nor do we have the ghettos you guys do. And yet our levels of taxation are not that much different.

Perhaps one reason for the middle class' erosion is the loss of skilled jobs here at home. Just out of curiosity, I wonder how the tides would turn if all products sold within the US required certain minimum workplace standards (labor laws, safety, etc.)? Would the increased expenditure be enough to bring more industry here to the US without the imposition of tariffs?

Mitchell wrote: Perhaps one reason for the middle class' erosion is the loss of skilled jobs here at home. Just out of curiosity, I wonder how the tides would turn if all products sold within the US required certain minimum workplace standards (labor laws, safety, etc.)? Would the increased expenditure be enough to bring more industry here to the US without the imposition of tariffs?

First page in this thread.

mtn wrote: 2: We need to do one of the following three things: Stop trade with countries that have no or little labor laws and minimum wage laws, Place big trade embargos upon said countries, or Stop with the minimum wage.